Does anyone believe that any Democratic Primary candidate

[MineralMan]

could possibly win in November, 2016, without spending at least as much on the campaign as the Repubicans spend? Does anyone believe that massive funding by PACs and other spending won't be necessary to actually win the general election?

Now, neither Senator Sanders nor O'Malley have a huge campaign fund for the primaries. It's possible that a grassroots effort could get one of them the nomination. Not probable, but possible. However, once nominated, the campaign spending will have to begin and match Republican spending dollar for dollar or exceed it.

Senator Sanders, at least, eschews big money donations during the primary, and is relying on individual donations, etc. I don't really know if his fundraising will support the kind of nationwide primary campaign he needs to do to beat Hillary Clinton. I doubt it, but I could be wrong about that.

Clinton has the funding advantage, no question. Not just in the primaries, but in the general election as well. She will find it easier to raise the billion or so dollars that it will take to win. Can the other candidates do that? Will just being the Democratic nominee get the kind of financial support needed? I don't know.

Does anyone really think that a small-donation funding effort and grassroots campaigning will win in November? I don't. I don't think there's a chance in Hell of that. We could lose this election and watch Republicans control all three branches of the federal government. We truly could.

[leftofcool]

1. No way can you win without money!

Clinton will have access to several billion and she will need it to go up against the Kochs. Anyone who believes you can win the GE on a shoestring (small donations) is fooling themselves.

[yeoman6987]

29. I am not worried about money Democratic Party has it

We spent more in 2008 and 2012 the republicans. We just have to break the cycle of democratic president not winning three cycles in a row in 70 years. That should be the focus. Get out and vote democratic supporters.

[Cal33]

89. Yes, there are Democratic millionaires and billionairs, perhaps as many as Republican ones.

[Ken Burch]

104. No way you can be progressive as president if they win WITH big money.

You're either with the streets or the suites...you can't be with both.

[Metric System]

2. There seems to be a lot of political naiveté. Some genuine, some calculated.

[MineralMan]

5. And part of that is not understanding that the 2016 race

could be a close one. Everyone's focused on the leading clown, who will not even be the nominee. Jeb Bush almost certainly will be, and he'll get the funding, no question. 2016, like most presidential elections, will actually be pretty close. They hinge on small margins, and massive campaigning is crucial. I don't like that, but it's a fact of life, and will not change without a wholesale change in our campaign funding. That has to come from Congress. Who thinks that a Republican-controlled Congress will ever make that change?

Elections cost money. Billions of dollars. Where's it going to come from? Not from $20 donations at PayPal, that's for sure.

[whatchamacallit]

3. FUD

We'll see... You're wrong so frequently this is actually encouraging.

[MineralMan]

6. Am I wrong so frequently? No, I don't think so.

You think I'm wrong. You disagree with me.

[whatchamacallit]

8. So the stuff you preached on FR wasn't wrong?

[MineralMan]

10. We are not on that website.

I haven't been on that website since 2006. They banned me for "anti-freeping." Could you please just stop bringing that up in every thread of mine? It has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. It's really boring. Out-of-context quotations from a half dozen posts I made over there over 10 years ago do not represent me at all.

Please stop. Argue about the point of my thread, please.

[whatchamacallit]

18. As to your OP

Not much to say, we'll know when the dust settles. Otherwise, it's just more assumptions and opinions from a poster with a legacy of questionable opinions.

[MineralMan]

22. Whatever...

[seabeyond]

4. i know that whomever gets the nod is gonna need money. reality. i have to figure regardless if it

is sanders, or omalley, they will get the corporate funds to put up a fight. we know clinton can do it. omalley is smart enough to know it is reality. and ya.... sanders does not want $ in campaigns any more than clinton or obama, and he too is smart enough to know it is a reality of running a presidential race.

[MineralMan]

7. I think the corporate funding is conditional on what the corporations

think will be the direction of an administration. Oh, they'll come up with some money, regardless, to hedge their bets. Most donate to both campaigns, but not equally.

The need to fund a nationwide campaign is ever-present. How well it gets funded makes a huge difference.

[seabeyond]

12. you are right. what tipped scale for obama was getting so much grassroot along with the 'hedging

bet' funding.

but, repugs got way more.

[Wellstone ruled]

9. This Election Cycle win be

battle of the deep pockets. Another item to watch will be what goes down with these so called Congressional Kangaroo Courts and how Ailes/Rove/Luntz market them. Issues seem to be on their way out,case in point,Trump. Bernie will be a force much like Humphrey was,but JFK's endless money and our limited resources did us in in 62',looking the same at this time

[MineralMan]

16. Deep pockets will certainly play a role, but

there are enormous differences between what the Republicans want to do and what each and every Democratic primary candidate wants to do. There are differences between Democratic candidates, of course, but none of those hold a candle to the difference between Democrats and Republicans overall.

Money is part of the equation, but not all of it.

[Wellstone ruled]

48. It all comes down to

October 1,2016 and who is paying attention. Yes there is a huge difference in party ideals and ideas,but if the Electorate chooses sound bites over facts,we are going to see the big money prevail. Been in your back yard so to speak since March,in saying that,noticed a edginess among many in the West Southwest part of the state. Buyers remorse? Or are we seeing a possible Farm Sector Collapse. $3 dollar corn this Friday cash price. Noticeable is the lack of Republican babble in the local Rags,zero about the Commodity crash,but they sure do like this fake thing about Ms Clinton. Another troubling sign,Farm Auctions in the month of August and September,the usual scenario is early spring after Tax time.

Remember all the Manufacturing jobs we lost to South Dakota,right to work for less and cheap labor. Well the worm is turning again,this jobs are on there way to Mexico,the 1%ers win again. Had a local School Principle tell us how they are just Educating their Students with sub standard methods and facilities just to fill voids in other Cities because the State Governmental Polices favor wedge issues over real issues. Throw this little fact toid out there,more registered Dems than Republicans in SoDak,it is all about getting people to the polls and counting any last minute slanted or false piece of campaign trash.

[TBF]

11. I'm not a proponent of letting it all blow up -

but frankly if that is how bad it is now - where we resign ourselves to being sold out to the highest bidder - than what is the point?

Seriously, what freedom? What on earth are we fighting for if we are willing to sell out to the highest bidder?

[brooklynite]

23. The point is to pick the candidate who promises to change the system...

...and can get elected to do it.

[TBF]

30. Obama promised changes -

I was there not only donating but also volunteering on the ground. It wasn't enough. It's never going to be a promise that an establishment candidate is going to make good on. That's why we need to move outside the box.

[brooklynite]

72. Great -- find me an outside the box candidate who can win in the inside-the-box system we have today

[TBF]

81. Well we're giving it a try with Bernie -

I don't know if it will be successful either or if we're headed to a violent revolution. What I do know is that we're living in a system now where the top 1/10th of the top 1% is controlling most of the assets. That's not sustainable.

[brooklynite]

93. "Giving it a try" isn't good enough...

given the prospect of a Republican win, I win't take the risk.

I'll note that Dean and Kucinich gave it a try as well.

[TBF]

98. It's all we've got down here

in the trenches. A corporate democratic win isn't good enough. Not when we've got the blatant income inequality we're dealing with. That is why you're getting the push back. It's not that people personally dislike Hillary Clinton (at least on this side of the aisle). She is an incredibly bright person, and heaven knows many women are very sympathetic given the whole Monica incident. But she is still has a conservative record, as evidenced by her stint as a corporate lawyer, serving on the board of Walmart, and her associations with the investment banks. We can do better.

[brooklynite]

99. That's why she voted against the Bush Tax cuts, is it?

[TBF]

100. I'm not going to knock a good vote.

I said there were positives. Unfortunately also some big negatives, imo.

Top campaign contributors to Clinton (career):

CAREER PROFILE (SINCE 1989)
Top Contributors
Senator Hillary Clinton

Campaign Finance Cycle:
Citigroup Inc $824,402 $816,402 $8,000
Goldman Sachs $760,740 $750,740 $10,000
DLA Piper $700,530 $673,530 $27,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $696,456 $693,456 $3,000
Morgan Stanley $636,564 $631,564 $5,000

This is not what we need.

[seabeyond]

62. the point? peoples lives.

if you need further explanation on live matter, let me know.

[TBF]

69. I find it difficult to believe that choosing Oligarchy/Fascism

is going to save lives. That is some serious cognitive dissonance.

[seabeyond]

71. you are seriously stating you cannot see electing a dem over a repug will save lives?

[TBF]

82. When Oligarchy takes over only the needs of the 1% are met -

how is that confusing? I'm talking about economics and the take-over of this country by the very wealthy.

I think it's time to watch "a big club" by George Carlin again:

[seabeyond]

84. you are seriously stating you cannot see electing a dem over a repug will save lives?

[TBF]

86. I think you may be intentionally missing the point -

I recommend watching the video again.

[seabeyond]

87. you are a proponent of letting it all blow up. you say, what is the point. i say LIVES.

you then talk about the oligarchy and it does not matter.

so i ask you

you are seriously stating you cannot see electing a dem over a repug will save lives?

and you wont answer.

because of course there is a difference electing a dem over a repug. and for whatever reason you refuse to admit something we should all, as democrats, easily be able to state.

why?

[TBF]

88. "I'm not a proponent of letting it all blow up"

^ there's the exact quote. Did I stutter?

[seabeyond]

97. HA.... then

my bad

misread, lol

sorry

[last1standing]

13. Apparently you did before your "conversion."

I don't remember you stating that you switch to Hillary because of cash. It was because us Bernie supporters were all so mean.

So please tell us how your views have changed on money in the last month and why the conveniently changed when your "support" did.

[MineralMan]

17. Actually, it is part of the reason for switching my support.

As I said in that post, I do not believe that Bernie Sanders or O'Malley, for that matter, could win in November. Part of it is just what this thread is about. I don't believe either of them can raise the funds for a national general election campaign.

Earlier, I was going to support Bernie Sanders in the Minnesota caucuses. But I said, again and again, that I did not believe for a minute that he would get the delegates from MN for the national convention. I expected to, and still expect to, be voting for Hillary Clinton in November. My change was only in who to support in the MN caucuses. That has changed, not my expectations of who will be the Nominee.

[last1standing]

24. LOL! Your revisionism certainly fits in with your "new" candidate.

I wish you both every happiness together.

[MineralMan]

26. With luck and hard work, there's a fair chance she'll

be the next President. It's far from a sure thing, though. So, I'll be working hard on making it happen.

[sufrommich]

14. No,massive amounts of money are needed in the General.

It's wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

[aikoaiko]

15. Hillary and Bill will make great fundraisers for Bernie.

[MineralMan]

20. I doubt it. I think they'd endorse, but not actively

campaign or fundraise for him. Same thing for President Obama. If Clinton is the nominee, I think you can count on wholehearted, enthusiastic support by all the many people who have endorsed Clinton already, along with those who can't really voice an endorsement yet.

Please notice the "I think" in this reply. It is my opinion only.

[questionseverything]

59. i have policy differences with both potus and the clintons

but i still love and respect all of them

for you to imply that they collectively would sell out the democratic party if hillary is not the nominee is really ugly

[leftofcool]

77. He didn't way they would sell out. They would endorse.

Bill Clinton is under no obligation to campaign for anyone.

[Fred Sanders]

19. Folks have bought into the media propaganda that the campaign has begun...when the money

flows like a river....then it begins.

No money, in season, means a quickly capsized boat.

Grassroots movements versus billions of dollars......it is naive to think that CU has not ended any real hope of a grassroots movement large enough to usurp the massive mountains of money and the influence that buys, influence of all kinds.

When the real campaign season opens....marked by 24 hour a day of relentless campaign advertising that wiil make the current "campaign" like child's play.

If all there is only fire on this barren CU landscape of election campaign law, then you fight the fire with fire, not daydreams.

[TheKentuckian]

21. Billions aren't free they come at a price that extracted right from our asses.

If this is correct then we have already lost no matter who wins homecoming queen.

[MineralMan]

25. Truly there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Many differences, actually. If you don't recognize them, you might think it doesn't matter. It does. Every time. I give you George W. Bush as an example. No thanks. I want a Democratic President. I want a Democratic House and Senate. Screw Republicans!

[TheKentuckian]

36. Who said there wasn't? What is the same is the strings the money buys and the broad worldview which

must be embraced to keep the dollars coming in.

[cali]

27. yes.

[MineralMan]

28. Thanks for your reply.

You answered my question. I disagree with your answer, but thank you for providing one.

[KoKo]

31. The test will be "Grassroots" over "Power Money."

The times may be ripe for Grassroots efforts as people become sickened by the constant ads and media controlled focus on personalty over issues.

Big Money buys Media Saturation...but, the audience for that kind of blitz may have begun to wane as people begin to cut the cable and seek information on the net. What has worked in the past may not work in the future as more and more people are waking up to the fact that their candidates and elections can be bought by those who have no interest in them -- only in their personal gratification and the power to increase their wealth.

As of now for the Democrats Hillary represents the Power, Wealth and Donors who will want more for providing the funds to Hillary/Bill's election. Will Hillary be seen as a Romney or a Trump?

We shall see...

[MineralMan]

32. I think you are overestimating the voting public with regard

to grassroots campaigns. As someone who has been walking precincts for decades, I think you are incorrect. I do not believe a grassroots effort alone can elect a President in this country. It takes money, and lots and lots of it.

DU does not even represent the opinion of Democratic voters, much less the entire nation of voters. Not even close. Not even fractionally, at least in any real way.

[KoKo]

33. BTW: I edited my reply up above....but..

DU'ers have other affiliations aside from being on this site. Many of us are politically involved in Democratic networks and organizations and have a wide array connections that we can monitor for sentiment.

What's with trashing fellow DU'ers?

DU does not even represent the opinion of Democratic voters, much less the entire nation of voters. Not even close. Not even fractionally, at least in any real way.

[MineralMan]

35. I'm trashing nobody.

I'm saying what I believe to be the case.

[KoKo]

45. What was the point in saying this?

It seemed to express disdain for fellow DU'ers that wasn't necessary or even made sense. As far as DU itself...the Admins early on expressed their support for Hillary Clinton. Others have differing opinions and until the Primaries are over we have the right to express opinions and support for other Dem Candidates in the race-- and, that is what we are doing.

You think DU'ers are not voters who have Democratic opinions? That's what you seem to be implying?

DU does not even represent the opinion of Democratic voters, much less the entire nation of voters. Not even close. Not even fractionally, at least in any real way.

[MineralMan]

46. I assume that 100% of DUers vote.

Their votes count, just as everyone else's do. A few active DUers are also heavily involved in things like GOTV activism. But, there may be a few thousand active DUers. That's it. I can see the thread view count just as well as anyone else, and most of those views represent multiple views by participants in any thread.

Of course DUers have opinions. That's not in question. I question whether the opinions expressed by DUers, however, reflect the general electorate in any meaningful way. I suspect not. In fact, I'm pretty damned sure they do not.

There's nothing at all wrong with DU. I'm here, because it's a good place to discuss politics. But I don't see it as representative of voters nationally in any way. For that, I work in my local area and gauge that by how people vote here. I don't actually do national politics, beyond just discussion them here. My total focus is within my state senate district and in our Senate races statewide. Beyond that, I'm just another voter and GOTV activist.

Discussing national politics within a tiny group of a few thousand people scattered across the nation is just an exercise. It has little to do with how things actually turn out.

[ladjf]

34. We find ourselves in a classic catch 22 situation.

The process of predicating election victory on the ability to raise and spend billions on publicity and bribes automatically corrupts the receiver of the funds which come with "strings" attached.

If it is definitely true that only by raising and spending billions can President be elected then there is no valid reason for having an election. The President might as well be appointed as was the case in 2000. We can all sit back and stop all the hand wringing as we watch what is left of our Government go to the drain as the oligarchy increases it's control exponentially, ultimately leading to collapse and annihilation of life on Earth.

Senator Sanders suggests that if enough voters join the political revolution the oligarchy can be overthrown. He did not supply us with odds of success. That's because there is no way to calculate those odds.

But it's easy to calculate the outcome if no one does anything other than go along with bad business as usual. Those odds are
99 to 1 against us.

I'm going to follow Sanders because he is the only candidate who is even trying to get a grasp of the problem and solution. I believe he has the intellect, courage and love for America we need to at least try. (An echo from Jack Nicholson's famous line in "Cooku's Next", "But I tried g..dammit. At least I did that."

[catnhatnh]

37. Well-if the Clintons won't support Bernie if he is the candidate...

and the DNC won't support him if he is the candidate, then who is the Democrat and who are betraying their professed beliefs?

[leftofcool]

38. The Clintons will endorse him.

Beyond that, they are not obligated for anything else.

[MineralMan]

39. I can't answer that question. I don't know the Clintons,

and I have no connection to the DNC. I'm sure they will all support whoever is the nominee. The enthusiasm of that support may depend on who the nominee actually turns out to be, though.

There is "support" and there is "enthusiastic support." That has come into play in a number of Presidential elections.

[catnhatnh]

41. You are being circumspect...

yet you still hint at the truth-if Bernie won the primary the DNC and Clinton's will pay lip service (and not one nickle more) and then fuck him-the Clinton's for revenge and the DNC because they would rather lose than change the status quo...

[MineralMan]

42. Based on my years in politics from a party organization

point of view, that's my opinion of what would happen. Such things have happened before. Bill and Hillary Clinton's support of Obama after he got the nomination was an exception, really. Such things rarely happen, really, beyond a bland endorsement.

[ladjf]

40. Yes. I believe that a Democratic Primary candidate could possibly win

in November, 2016, without spending at least as much on the campaign as the Republicans spend. To feel otherwise, one would be concluding that the elect-ability of the Democratic and Republican candidates is equal, therefore the outcome is totally related to the sum of money spent campaigning. I think that the Democratic candidates are far superior to any of the Republican candidates.
That makes a difference.

And, I think that Sanders and O'Malley also believe it's possible otherwise they wouldn't be running.

The "dueling billions" is the media's wet dream, a total barrage of mindless propaganda crap.

[MineralMan]

43. You know, I wish that were true.

More's the pity.

[Motown_Johnny]

44. You better believe it, the (D)s won't have as much money as the (R)s

The Koch brothers themselves are said to be planning on dumping a billion dollars into it.

We will be outspent. That is a fact.

Sanders is our best bet because he is attacking that entire structure. With Clinton, she is going to try and embrace that structure and still win. It is a flawed approach.


This is our one last fight against Citizens United. We need a non Citizens United candidate elected President.

[sadoldgirl]

47. Let me see whether I got your message straight:

Money buys the presidency,

The only candidate with a D behind it,
who will get the money, is HRC.

So, everyone better get behind her.


Why don't you just tell everyone to
stop the primaries, and to declare her
the winner? Even the DNC would not do that,
as much as they would like to.

[MineralMan]

50. No, you got my message crooked.

Money doesn't buy the presidency. It affects elections, though. Campaigning today in a competitive race is very costly. We're a nation of 300+ million people, living in 50 states scattered across a huge country. There are regional and local divisions of people. We elect our President, not by popular vote, but through the electoral college.

Every President must be elected with 270 electoral votes, so must win enough states to get those electoral votes. What that means is establishing individual election campaign groups in every state a candidate hopes to win. It means heavy advertising, GOTV campaigns, and much, much more. Every one of those things costs money. Lots and lots of money. Everything from bumper stickers and yard signs to radio and television advertising comes at a price. Professional campaign staffs cost plenty, too. Travel to the necessary appearances costs money. If a campaign wants others to travel to campaign for them, the campaign has to pay their expenses, at least, and often more.

Money doesn't buy the presidency, but winning a Presidential election costs lots of money. You have to reach people who don't have any idea who you are and what you will do. You have to convince them to actually get up out of their chairs and vote for you. You have to give them reasons to bother to vote at all. Even with all of your efforts, getting even 50% of registered voters to actually vote is a tough, tough pull.

You have some opponent saying nasty things about you. If you don't respond with your own statements, the opponent wins. You have an opponent who is promising things to voters. If you don't respond with your own promises, the opponent wins. To win, you have to put out an effort that is equal to your opponent. Elections for President are often quite close in many states. We watch, on Election Day, to see how those swing states end up voting. Sometimes, we don't know who won until sometime the next day, or even weeks after the election, as happened in 2000. We're that closely divided.

In 2016, billions of dollars will be spent on the presidential election. In most House districts, well over a million dollars will be spent by each candidate. In Senate elections, far more is spent. But presidential elections are far, far more costly, for the reasons I described above. Grassroots efforts don't substitute for campaign dollars in presidential elections. They can't.

I knock on every door in my precinct in St. Paul, MN. I talk to about half of registered Democratic voters in that precinct in every presidential election. My job is to try to get them to go to the polls and vote for the Democrats on the ballot. The very best I have been able to do was to get 65% of registered democrats in my precinct to actually go and vote. That's pretty high, really, and my precinct has a higher turnout than the neighboring ones that don't have someone canvassing the way I do. But there are still 35% of registered Democrats who don't bother. Some just shrug and say it doesn't matter. Others are "too busy." Others have other reasons for not voting.

It's hard to get people to go to the polls and vote for you if you're running for President. It's very expensive. That's the reality. And if you don't get more than the opponent to vote for you, you lose. Happens all the time.

[djean111]

49. So - Hillary gets to buy the Presidency?

Not on my dime. And you are, essentially, saying everything about the issues is meaningless? Interesting.

[MineralMan]

51. Issues matter a lot to some people. Less that you'd think, though.

When I talk to voters in my own precinct, I ask them what is the most important thing to them about each election. You'd be surprised at their answers. It's rarely what the guy next door says. If they haven't heard from the Democratic candidate about their pet issue, they don't vote. That's why candidates spend so much money. They have to reach those voters.

Everyone thinks about issues, but not everyone thinks about the same issues. Convincing voters to take the time to go vote for you is hard. It requires lots of messaging, and messaging costs money.

See, I don't know what issues are the most important to you. They're probably different from the ones that are most important to me. I'm absolutely sure they're different from the guy who lives next door to me and the guy across the street from him.

Issues matter, but not always the issues you think are the most important. Everyone cares about issues - their own issues.

You know what my primary issue is? It's keeping Republicans out of office. Republicans are for the things I oppose and oppose the things I support. I want Republicans to lose elections, and I want Democrats to win. That's how we make progress on a broad range of issues. Progress. That's what I want. That's what my neighbors want. I don't expect miraculous change. I expect progress, and I get more of that when Democrats win. So, that's the issue I work on. I'm about Democrats winning elections. That's what DU is about, too.

[last1standing]

52. Isn't it funny that he didn't have these "concerns" when he was supposedly supporting Bernie?

It's almost as if he didn't really believe this stuff but wanted to come up with some argument against his former candidate since the white supremacist thing isn't working out too well these days.

That that couldn't be right. It's not like we're dealing with someone who spent years advocating for right wing positions on a well known hate forum, is it?

[MineralMan]

55. I was supporting Sanders in my state's CAUCUSES.

I actually never though he'd become the nominee, and said so many times. I like Sanders, and wish he could be elected as President. I do not see that as a possibility, though. I never really have in any sort of realistic way.

DU and a raft of people outside of DU convinced me of that even more, so I decided to shift my caucus support to Hillary Clinton. My decision. I reserve the right to make my own decisions and think you should make your own decisions.

[last1standing]

57. Sure you were, and yet all of a sudden you have tons of objections to Sanders.

I was going to say your statement about making our own decisions was a good attempt at changing the topic, but it was actually feeble. You posted your OP in an attempt to sway the decisions of others and I'm responding to show how cynical your post was.

[MineralMan]

58. This is a political discussion forum. People are constantly

trying to sway the opinion of others. That's politics. Everyone who is serious here is trying to sway people's opinions. Decisions are based on people's opinions. It's not cynical to try to change those opinions. It's politics.

[last1standing]

60. And I'm showing people that your attempts to do so are not what they seem.

As I said, "feeble."

Did this kind of diversion work on the other site?

[MineralMan]

61. It's a public forum. You should do as you see fit here.

[last1standing]

64. Thank you for insightful advice. I will.

And I will continue to tell people that your newfound fear of Bernie not having enough money to buy the election is no more than Team Hillary propaganda that does nothing, not one little bit, to promote the needs of the poor and minorities.

[sufrommich]

70. Of course they're what they seem. Do you think

the question of having enough money when running against republicans is irrelevant?

[last1standing]

73. If Bernie s the nominee and the party doesn't support him with the money he needs...

That will say everything we need to know about who now runs the Democratic party and what they really stand for.

If I wanted to support the candidate with the most cash, which is what you and MM are pushing for, I'd vote Trump.

[sufrommich]

80. The Democratic party isn't the main source of funding for

presidential elections,donors are.

[djean111]

56. Yes, it is rather amusing, isn't it?

Let's see, to be fair as I can - I think the constant drip and ooze and whinging about Bernie not having enough money, or Bernie only really appealing to 5 or 6 racists from Vermont who drive Volvos - is more useless and less effective than the GOP's investigation of Benghazi and email-gate.

[last1standing]

63. If the Democratic party apparatus closes it's purse strings on Bernie.

Then they will prove without any doubt that they're really supporting the 1%. If they drop the veneer of supporting the people, the party will die.

But until that time, we will continue to hear the same old "it's not practical to demand equal rights! It's not realistic to expect a progressive tax system! You can't win an election without selling yourself to the highest bidders!"

[NanceGreggs]

95. How you could have ...

... interpreted the OP to mean "Hillary gets to buy the presidency" is beyond me.

"And you are, essentially, saying everything about the issues is meaningless?"

Again, how did you ever come to that conclusion?

In any election, money is the tool used to get the importance of the issues out there. Money buys ads, pays staffers, covers posters, yard signs, phone bank expenses, funds a candidate's travel expenses when he/she campaigns in different areas of the country.

The issues become meaningless when there is no way to get them front-and-centre - like the tree falling in the forest that may as well be soundless if there's no one there to hear it fall.

Like it or not, the election system we have is fueled by dollars, and the most important message in the world is meaningless if it's never heard.

[HFRN]

53. 'We DEMAND that you support Hillary - It's MANDATORY!'

seems to be her supporter's message

[MineralMan]

54. That's not my message.

You should vote for whomever you prefer in the primaries. I'll be disappointed, though, if you don't vote for Democrats in the general election for every office on the ballot. That's sure as Hell what I'll be doing, but I can't dictate or demand anything from anyone but myself. You will do what you decide to do. I hope to influence that decision. That's all.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. "First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they fight you, then you win." M. Gandhi.

[TBF]

90. Amen. K&R nt

[sadoldgirl]

66. If your main objective is to keep the WH

in the hands of the Dems, then you better think twice
about supporting HRC. The drip, drip, drip of bad news
keeps coming. A nominee, whose server is checked by
the FBI has a cloud over his/her head. I am sure by now
that the repugs try to keep their best and most effective
weapon back until she has become the nominee.

I don't think that HRC could win the GE; maybe Bernie
cannot either, but my bet goes in for Bernie.
There is a different mood in the country now, than I
have seen since the late sixties. The fact that a fascist
like Trump can represent 25% of the repugs should
make that very clear.

You pick your candidate,and I will pick mine.Still, it
may turn out that neither one will be elected even
during the primaries.

[leftofcool]

78. First of all, the FBI is not investigating anyone's server.

The FBI is investigating the process of how email is classified. Please stop using right wing talking points. And by the way, Republicans have no weapons against Hillary Clinton. If you really buy into that then you have not been reading real news or listening to Democrats.

[NanceGreggs]

67. There is a great deal of naivete ...

... at play among the Bernie supporters here.

They see themselves as part of a revolution, a movement, a popular uprising. In reality, they are simply supporters of a particular candidate - same as HRC supporters, O'Malley supporters, etc. They insist that "the people" are sick of this, and tired of that - with little regard to the fact that the vast majority of "the people" they seem to know so much about - and deign to speak on behalf of - are supporting other candidates. And that includes GOP candidates, for whom a lot of "the people" will be casting their votes.

Many of them see Bernie as the outsider who's going to change the system when elected. They fail to understand that in order to get elected, one has to navigate the system as it now stands, not as one envisions it a future that doesn't yet exist. Funding a political campaign in the real world costs money - and LOTS of it. And refusing to recognize that, or to rely on the notion that the necessary funds are just going to magically appear when needed, is simply a dismissal of reality.

We've all seen it here on DU: Money doesn't matter, endorsements don't matter, polls don't matter, Bernie's failure to connect with AAs/minorities doesn't matter. Instead we are pointed to FaceBook "likes" and "everyone I know loves Bernie" stories - as though the choosing of the Dem nominee and/or the electing of the next president will be determined by such things instead of actual votes being counted.

There is also the naive notion that if nominated, Sanders would be somehow immune from the now-legendary muck-raking ability of the GOP - as though they would look at Bernie and say, "Well, we've got nothing on this guy, so we'll just sit back and keep our mouths shut." Anyone who is even remotely politically aware knows that once Bernie became a viable threat in the GE, the Republican powers-that-be would be digging up every word he ever uttered, every position he ever took, every move he ever made in his entire life and spinning it into something nefarious - along with just making shit up, as they've a wont to do.

"But Bernie has always told the truth." I've seen that posted here over and over, as though it is an impenetrable shield against the GOP smear machine, FOX-News, and a MSM that is in largely in bed with the Republican party. As someone posted in an OP yesterday, the truth about HRC's emails is not important as compared to the perception of wrongdoing. The Sanders supporters don't want to recognize what "perceptions of wrongdoing" would be touted against him 24/7 were he the nominee.

It's nice to think about a time when money truly IS out of politics. But that time is not yet arrived. You have to deal with reality as it is, and not how you wish it was. While BS supporters cling to the idea that "Bernie is different, therefore everything is different," the fact is that this primary and the upcoming election are the same as they ever were, the rules of engagement are the same as they ever were, and pretending they aren't is sheer folly.

[jfern]

68. Jerry Brown got outspent 5-1 to in 2010

The most money doesn't always win.

In his first election to the US Senate, Sanders won 2-1, despite being outspent.

[leftofcool]

76. Yes, but those were not presidential elections.

As well, Jerry Brown was already loved in California.

[highprincipleswork]

74. Brainwashing alert

What a cynical country. No wonder we keep getting the same old schmucks, that we deserve.

No, we really deserve someone like Bernie, who is out there telling the truth. And why exactly do you believe he is filling stadiums the way he is.

Emerson said, "the human heart resounds to that iron string." Yes, the iron string of the facts. The iron string of the truth. The iron string of what's right or wrong.

Yes, I believe a politician that does and says what is right and true can defeat all the money in the world.

Call me naive. I would call those who deal in the usual assumption more than a little bit cynical or subject to "prevailing wisdom" (propaganda), and faithless. Not the way that I choose to live, and I don't encourage others to live that way either.

I encourage you to feel the Bern. I encourage you to embrace that which is true and right and good and ride it all the way home.

[leftofcool]

79. LMAO!

[MineralMan]

92. "Feel the Bern" is just a slogan.

It doesn't really mean anything concrete. It's an appeal to emotion, and nothing more. My slogan for 2016 is "Elect a Democrat as President or Lose It All." I'm not "feeling the Bern," I guess.

[Omnith]

75. You're right

The nominee will need money equal to the republican. Which they will likely get. I don't think anyone thinks the nominee won't need that kind of money.

In any case it is shaping up to be an exciting election. I hope it's Bernie vs Trump. I really am looking forward to it whoever the nominees are.

[hrmjustin]

83. Sad fact is you need a lot of money to win.

Thinking a candidate can just open his mouth and people will fall behind him is political naivete.

[Bonobo]

85. Wait...

I thought you turned against Sanders because of his supporters.

[MineralMan]

91. Yes, I did, and that was accurate.

In fact, his supporters apparently do think he can win through grassroots efforts, money notwithstanding. I think that's foolish and incorrect. I don't know if Senator Sanders believes that, as well. He may. In any case, it's simply not true. Since I want a Democratic President to follow Obama, I'm supporting the candidate I think can win. So are all Democrats in Congress, pretty much. They're experienced at winning elections.

So, yes, supporters and their beliefs are part of the reason for my change of the candidate to support. My issue is keeping any Republican from becoming President. That's what guides me. You might have different goals, but that's my goal.

[Bonobo]

94. A lofty goal, my jovial, white-bearded friend! Lofty indeed! nt

[MineralMan]

96. Thanks.

[DanTex]

101. Basically, no.

I don't think that we need to spend "at least as much" -- that's pretty much out of the question, assuming the Koch brothers actually go through with their plans -- but we need to be in the ballpark. With Bernie, we'd be going in at something like 5-1 or 10-1 disadvantage financially.

[tularetom]

102. Why have an election at all, just appoint the person who raises the most money

Every candidate should turn his/her books over to a specially appointed team of accountants, who would then perform an audit and certify the results to congress. Congress would then appoint the candidate who showed the highest total money raised during the campaign.

Lets just get rid of the hypocrisy of pretending we live in a democracy anymore.

[RiverLover]

105. +1 /nt

[Ken Burch]

103. Does anyone think that a politician who gets large corporate donations

can possibly care about anyone other than large donors?

[JackInGreen]

106. Yes I do

You might have lost your optimism that it can happen. Quit telling the rest of us it's a fools errand, Uncle Owen.

[MineralMan]

107. I won't quit posting my opinion on DU. Sorry.

Thanks for your reply, though.

[JackInGreen]

108. I keep reading you because often I respect your opinions

Here I'm afraid we differ. I've still got hope we can buck this thing without having to sell out to it.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. Yes. There are many examples of election victory won with far less spending that the losers.

If more money equaled victory, Meg Whitman would be governor of CA, Carly Fiorino a CA Senator and Oregon's Jeff Merkley would be back home while Monica Whelby sat in the Senate. And yet you have never even heard of Monica, who had lots of Koch money and lost by 20%.

If simply spending more promotional money equated to success, no product or piece of entertainment would ever fail to profit. In reality, over promotion can be as toxic and under promotion, enough is in fact enough and too much is in fact too much.
They are as sick that surfeit with too much as those who starve with nothing.